Dear Peter Tyser,
In message 1251001885-19289-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com you wrote:
The more standard 'source' command provides identical functionality to the autoscr command.
Thanks.
There was a fair amount of grey area as far as environment variable naming for those variables that used to refernce autoscr.
Why actually?
I tended to lean toward using "script" in the variable name as I thought that was a lot more descriptive than "source", which could mean lots of different things. eg I migrated autoscr_addr to script_addr instead of source_addr.
I also figured the "autoscript" and "autoscript_uname" variables were more descriptive than "autosource" and "autosource_uname", so they were left alone.
I disagree here. "autoscript" has not much (if any) meaning when it comes to executing shell scripts (and this is what we are talking about there). I am not aware of a single man page in any of the many Unix flavours using this term. [OTOH, it is the name of an existing company and as such eventually a protected trade mark, at least in some parts of the world.]
If others (especially board maintainers affected) have a strong opinion about environment variable naming let me know.
I do. I want to get rid of references to "autoscr" / "autoscript".
Using "script_addr" (and it's variabts) is OK with me.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk